Tim's journal

tl;dr since 1995

It's usually a good thing when people talk about ways to increase women's participation in programming communities. I used to be active in the Haskell community, so normally, that the subject came up during the annual "Future of Haskell" discussion at this year's Haskell Symposium would be something for me to cheer about.

Sometimes, men talk about the gender disparity in tech communities as if there's some big mystery. I have to conclude that these guys haven't talked to women who currently work in computer science academia and the tech industry, or who did and then left. As someone who was perceived as a girl or woman doing computer science for 12 years, my solution to the lack of women in tech is:

Stop telling women that they aren't welcome and don't belong.

During the "Future of Haskell" discussion, Doaitse Swierstra (a professor of computer science at the University of Utrecht), suggested that a good way to increase the number of Haskell programmers would be to recruit one woman for every man in the room and that this would be a good thing because it would "make the meetings more attractive".

In other words: he followed a call for more participation by women with exactly the kind of comment that tells women that a space is unsafe for them.

Suggesting that more women would be welcomed at a conference because they would make it "more attractive" is saying that women are valued for how they look, not for what they do. If you've ever heard the words "objectification" or "hypersexualization" and not known what they meant, well, look no further than this comment for an example. And because many women see spaces where they are targets for the male gaze as spaces where they will be targets for more than just men's gazes, it's a comment that carries the underlying message that the computer science conference under discussion is not, in fact, a place where a self-protecting woman ought to be. It's not that Prof. Swierstra said any of this outright, of course. He didn't have to. English-speaking academicians are part of that subset of the world in which everyone comes pre-installed with the cultural programming that means a few words about the "attractiveness" that more women participants would bring to the Haskell Symposium evoke a whole world of stereotypes -- ones that limit women's choices, careers, and lives.

Swierstra's remarks were also potentially alienating to any non-heterosexual men who were present, as they reflected an assumption that he was speaking to an audience of people who found women, and only women, "attractive". Finally, there is a tacit understanding when one talks about "attractive" women that one is talking about women who have cissexual bodies, are thin, aren't disabled, and are in a particular, narrow age range. So apparently, if you're a woman and not all of those descriptors apply to you, maybe you shouldn't think about learning Haskell, as your presence wouldn't make the Haskell Symposium more attractive (to heterosexual men).

So while Prof. Swierstra may have meant no harm -- may indeed have meant to do good by encouraging efforts to increase women's participation in the Haskell community -- what matters is not his intent, but the effect of his words. (Everyone who's ever written code knows that the compiler doesn't care about your intent; extend that to your interactions with other people, and you might find yourself behaving more fairly.) Any women who were in the room for the meeting (and when I have attended it in the past, there have always been at least a few) got the message that if they weren't there to be pretty, why were they there? And any women who watched the video of the discussion (relevant part begins around 32 minutes in) got the message that the Haskell community is a community that tolerates sexism.

When I watched the video, what I heard after Prof. Swierstra's comment about attractiveness was laughter. No one called him out; the discussion moved on. I might be wrong here, but the laughter didn't sound like the nervous laughter of people who have recognized that they've just heard something terrible, but don't know quite what to do about it, either (though I'm sure that was the reaction of some attendees). It sounded like the laughter of people who were amused by something funny.

It would have taken just one person to stand up at that moment and say, "That was sexist and it's not acceptable here." (That person would probably have to be a senior faculty member or researcher, someone of equal rank to Prof. Swierstra; challenging a male, senior researcher is not something a female grad student (or even maybe a male grad student) should be expected to do.) But nobody did. And that's what really disappoints me. Structural sexism persists not because of the few people who do and say blatantly bad things, but because of the majority who tolerate them. People say things like the things Prof. Swierstra said because they are socially rewarded for it: they can get a few laughs. Also, they can display their membership in a high-status group (heterosexual men). Take the reward away, and the comments and actions that exclude go away too.

I expected more from the people who attend the Haskell Symposium. I expected more because for years, I attended ICFP and the Haskell Symposium, and even in the days when I didn't identify as male and didn't usually challenge others' perception of me as a woman, I felt like I was in a community where I belonged when I was there. For the most part, I didn't feel like my perceived gender was called attention to, and I felt like I would be judged based on what I could contribute to a conversation rather than on whether a man would find my appearance pleasing. If my first Haskell Symposium as a twenty-year-old had been in 2012 instead of 2000, I wouldn't have come away with the same impression. And I don't know if I would have gone back.

I'm no longer in the community of people who attend ICFP, and I no longer work on Haskell projects. My academic career ended a year ago when I was told that I couldn't be a grad student if I didn't want to interact with another student I'd witnessed joking about raping a fellow student. I have a job that doesn't involve Haskell, and lack the privilege of having spare time and energy left to do programming projects when I'm done with paying work. There have been days when I've had regrets. Today is not one of them. If I'd continued doing functional programming research, I could have been an agent for change; sexism no longer affects me directly now that folks have to have it spelled out for them that I'm not a cis man. Still, I don't feel like a community that makes somebody feel like it's acceptable to say that women would add "attractiveness" to a professional meeting is a community that I belong in.

If you are a man in this community, please don't feel like you have no power. You actually have a lot of power: you can let people who make these comments know that sexism isn't okay. The Geek Feminism Wiki's "Resources for allies" page is one resource that can help; the wiki also has a page of good sexism comebacks. Some comebacks that might have helped in this situation are: "I don't think that sounds as funny as you want it to sound"; "Who let you think it would be okay to say something like that?"; "Excuse me? / "I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. Could you state it more plainly?"; "It sounds like you are implying <sexist thing>. I'm sure you don't really think that. <change subject>"; "That was sexist"; and (if used by the moderator) "We're done" and "That was sexist, and that is not acceptable here." Of course, there are others. The most important thing you can do to be an ally is to listen to women, and people who are perceived as women, in your community. Don't lecture people about how to respond to difficulties you haven't faced; simply learn from their own self-reporting of their experiences. Of course, don't demand that others educate you without establishing trust, either.

Countering sexism requires courage and (in Samuel Delany's words) moral stamina. It is work that largely needs to be done by men, since men who tacitly believe that women aren't quite human are hardly going to listen to women's opinions on the subject. For men to do this work, of course, they have to believe that women belong in their communities, that women are more than just attractive bodies, and that their communities will benefit from the inclusion of women -- benefit in ways that are not about aesthetics. Whether from within or without, I hope that the Haskell community will include more men who have this courage and who believe these principles -- whether or not the presence of those men makes the community more attractive.Addendum: If you're coming here from Reddit, please take the time to read four background pieces that are part of my earlier series of essays "A Problem With Equality": "Power and privilege", "Systems and individuals", "What oppression is", and "Emotional invalidation". Most criticisms of the piece you're reading have already been answered in one of these essays.

Can you tell what he says at the end of his comment? Something like "...and you don't have to worry about [controlling bad programming behavior?] because they usually don't program; they usually leave that to us?"

(I wonder if he's considered that maybe the fact that his source of Haskell converts is a *math department* is an influence on how much they like programming, rather than their gender.)

During the "Future of Haskell" discussion, Doaitse Swierstra (a professor of computer science at the University of Utrecht), suggested that a good way to increase the number of Haskell programmers would be to recruit one woman for every man in the room and that this would be a good thing because it would "make the meetings more attractive".

Or, of course, they could be getting me and women like me - the plain ones. The wallpaper women. The women who have their feet stepped on by the men trying to talk to their "pretty friend". The ones who weren't and aren't pursued, and who have largely dropped out of the beauty race because it's no fun putting in the hard yards to try and reach the finish line when you know you're not going to even get any kudos for participation.

Because, let's face it, trying to meet the criteria for "attractiveness" in this society is an exhausting exercise. If I were to be attempting it, it would take every single minute of my conscious day (and I'd probably be having trouble sleeping as well). It wouldn't leave much room for the hard intellectual yakka of actually doing programming, because I'd be attempting to deal with an ever-shifting set of goalposts, and that is hard work in and of itself. Plus, of course, I'd be doing it on a microscopic calorie load, because the major determinant for "attractive" in this society appears to be "thin" (and I don't have the body type or the metabolism for thin). Which would, of course, make intellectual work even more difficult.

I gave up on attempting to look pretty, or attractive, or anything like that years ago. Instead, I work on being valued for the thing I know I have going for me - I'm intelligent and I can turn that intelligence to things like programming. I'm good at intellectual stuff. If I were a guy, that would count. It would be worthy of respect on its own. But of course, because I'm female, that doesn't count if I'm not also an appropriate object for the male gaze. Instead, I just fade into the wallpaper.

No. No. No. I'm sure the person in question was not just implying but actually stating whatever they were stating about my sex, and I'm sure any sharp man "ally" would be sure of that, too. So that "comeback" shows the person making it to be weak of mind, which infuriates me. Put yourself in my shoes: I'm a woman and some man says [insert sexist dumb thing he said here] and I, as a woman, knowing exactly how sexist his statement is, I not only apologize *for* this person's insult ("I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, bro" *backslap*) but then I also go ahead and change the subject (assumed: quickly) so I don't offend him (reminder: I was the one offended in the first place) and/or force him to account to *me* for what he said. Are they kidding? And I'm saying "they" because I know the comeback was not your idea but something on the GF blog. But just because it was there doesn't make saying it right.

I believe (I was about 15 feet from Doitse when he made these remarks, but haven't watched the video) that he was making exactly your point. In other words, he gets a large number of excellent female math "majors" (I don't know the Dutch system) in his introductory Haskell courses, but that "they", being mathematicians rather than computer scientists, aren't a great source of future Haskell programmers.

I agree that this can be a problematic response, as it's basically making excuses for the speaker. I think it could be useful in some contexts. It's probably not what I would have said in this one, had I been there. Every situation has its nuances and sometimes, it can be useful to allow everyone to save face, even at the expense of being completely blunt. It's better than not saying anything at all.

While I completely understand the anger in your comment in trying to live up to societal perceptions of beauty (and that the orignal comment about increasing attractiveness is offensive on many levels), I feel that your comment goes a bit far in making an assumption that being attractive is somehow a full time job, and more importantly, that it somehow detracts from your ability to be an intelligent human being. From an aesthetic point of view, I like fashion, it's a form of expression and shows off my personality in an external way. I also love maintaining an active lifestyle. I also have a science PhD. So what? In the same way that I object to the notion that "Real women have curves" (real women come in all shapes and sizes - including curvy AND non-curvy AND everything in between) I also reject the notion that "Smart women don't care about/don't have time to care about their appearance".

I'm sorry if people have judged your worth by your appearance, that is a horrible form of sexism that should be dealt with and worth commenting on, but you should keep in mind the other perspective. You write that you gave up on trying to look pretty and instead (which is the word to which I take offense) work on being valued for your intelligence. To me, these two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

My blood boils when people say "oh such-and-such person doesn't look like an [insert science/tech professional here]". Last time I checked these professions don't have appearance prerequisites.

Smart women(or men) are smart women(or men). period. I don't assume a woman is dumb because she is wearing trendy jeans any more than I assume she is smart if she is wearing sweatpants and hasn't combed her hair.

Correlation between intelligence and appearance is complete nonsense, saying anything less is just another flavor of sexism (and I believe this type of women-on-women sexism is extremely counter productive).

I feel that your comment goes a bit far in making an assumption that being attractive is somehow a full time job

It wasn't an assumption; it was her perspective based on her experience. She didn't claim it was universal.

I also love maintaining an active lifestyle.

That's nice, but I'm not sure how it relates to anything discussed here.

You write that you gave up on trying to look pretty and instead (which is the word to which I take offense) work on being valued for your intelligence. To me, these two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

She said, "It wouldn't leave much room for the hard intellectual yakka of actually doing programming." Again, it's her experience and her perspective.

I agree that this is her perspective and her experience (and I stated that the kind of sexism she's experienced is horrible), and she is 100% entitled to feel that way for herself. My issue was more with the idea that she (and others) have to pick one or the other (the "instead") bit and it made it seem (to me) that she was suggesting that women who care about their appearance can't have time for other (intellectual) endeavors. If megpie71 had written a comment along the lines "I don't care about my appearance, the original speakers comment therefore offended me because people don't pay attention to 'plain' (her word) women they only care about conventionally 'attractive' women" I would not have even looked twice. The problem I had with the comment was this idea that it was either-or.

Actually the last quote you quote is problematic. It doesn't read "it wouldn't leave much room (FOR ME) to program". In fact, megpie71 writes two sentences earlier

"Because, let's face it, trying to meet the criteria for "attractiveness" in this society is an exhausting exercise.".

That, to me, reads like a much more general statement, not necessarily relating to her experience, but written in the comment as if it's a universal truth.

(Sidenote: the comment about the active lifestyle has to do with the fact that I take time to actually do those things - because I enjoy them, which therefore leaves somehow "less time" for the "hard intellectual yakka".)

Thanks for this. I wound up getting a copy of dicedtomato's comment in my inbox yesterday, and it raised my blood pressure right through the roof and led me to write a very long, detailed and, at times, nasty response. You've basically said what I was saying in that long screed in just a few sentences.

One thing which probably is worth pointing out: I don't think dicedtomato was replying to me as such, so much as to all those people she's run across who were saying "you can't be a scientist, you're too pretty" or similar such comments to her. Which is fine, and yeah, I get that my comment proved to be a handy spot to hang that particular rant. Didn't make it any more comfortable from my end, but hey, that's life, and I'm used to it by now.

Oh, and dicedtomato, if you're reading: your little comment about being offended by my choosing not to participate in a game I couldn't win? That came across as EXTREMELY sexist to me, because it implied simply because of my expressed gender, you're expecting me to do an extra shift of work every day; work members of a different gender aren't expected to perform. Do consider that.

FYI, I moderated dicedtomato's original comment because I felt like there was some line-crossing stuff in it. (I don't know if you saw the original comment or not -- not sure if DW emails screened comments to the people those comments are in reply to before the comment gets unscreened.) I thought her edited comment was clearer, so I allowed it, though I wasn't totally sure. I'm still not sure if I did the right thing (according to my comment policy).

Well, as far as maintaining the social graces goes (especially at work) I can see it's utility as a response, I agree with you there. But I'm the kind to treat such things with not much more than stunning silence and maybe some pointed looks, unless the person responsible for that is ballsy enough to call me on my non-reaction (few are since they seem to figure out, without without me saying too much, what the problem is, more or less). If they do ask me what's wrong, and if I choose to tell them, I don't mince words. But that's just me.

The main advantage to the "I'm sure you didn't really mean" tactic, in its proper season, is that it's a sort of psychological sneak attack. First you provide direct, blunt feedback that what they've done is socially unacceptable. Then you simultaneously mark yourself in Friendly colors and exit the field, leaving all their status-quo-affirming psychological defenses with no target to entrench against.

It's a tried and true method for those with small but positive authority (say, those who are officially peers but have more seniority in a social circle you're new to) to inculcate group values into newbies. ("Milk and lemon? Tee-hee, surely you're joking Mr. Feynman!")

Closely related is the "pretending not to understand" strategy -- for example, if the original incident had been a small-group conversation, someone could have said, "I don't understand -- how would just adding more women make the meetings more attractive than they already are?" The "joke" relies on an assumption of shared beliefs, so when someone asserts they don't share those beliefs, that destabilizes things, and forces the speaker to explain, when all of this stuff works based on *not* having to explain.

Sadly, this wouldn't have worked in a large group. But it's hella funny to imagine.

Anyone who complains that this might imply conventionally attractive women are less intelligent, or less committed to their intellectual pursuits, needs to check her privilege. It's easier for some to reach, but that doesn't make the expectation that we be decorative (not merely presentable or professional looking, as men might be asked to be) in addition to being capable any less unreasonable or sexist.